[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Looting & vandalism isn't protest - Steely_D - May 31, 2020 - 11:43pm
 
Trump - KarmaKarma - May 31, 2020 - 11:41pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - May 31, 2020 - 10:17pm
 
Stupid Questions (and Answers) - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 9:53pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 9:50pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - haresfur - May 31, 2020 - 9:43pm
 
Name My Band - Coaxial - May 31, 2020 - 7:17pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - KarmaKarma - May 31, 2020 - 7:13pm
 
What Did You See Today? - buddy - May 31, 2020 - 4:41pm
 
Race in America - R_P - May 31, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - KarmaKarma - May 31, 2020 - 1:27pm
 
RPeeps I miss. - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 11:55am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 11:54am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 11:50am
 
I can't download a cache block for offline listening - q4Fry - May 31, 2020 - 10:34am
 
Two questions. That's it. I promise. - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 10:27am
 
Amazon Echo/Alexa stream not working - Gourd - May 31, 2020 - 10:14am
 
Questions. - buddy - May 31, 2020 - 9:34am
 
A thousand million questions - buddy - May 31, 2020 - 9:32am
 
What kind of lunatic answers rhetorical questions? - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 8:45am
 
Crucial History Questions - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 8:43am
 
Medical Questions - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Questions I'd like to ask at tonight's debate - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 8:41am
 
What questions would you like to answer for the world? - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 8:36am
 
Dumbass Questions - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 8:35am
 
Rhetorical questions - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 8:33am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - May 31, 2020 - 8:30am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - May 31, 2020 - 7:23am
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - May 31, 2020 - 6:59am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - May 31, 2020 - 5:01am
 
Australia and New Zealand Music - whatshisname - May 31, 2020 - 4:12am
 
What Did You Do Today? - whatshisname - May 31, 2020 - 4:02am
 
Cloud Gazing (Photos You've Taken) - haresfur - May 30, 2020 - 9:50pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - May 30, 2020 - 8:26pm
 
Automotive Lust - Coaxial - May 30, 2020 - 4:53pm
 
Advice? - Red_Dragon - May 30, 2020 - 4:01pm
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - kurtster - May 30, 2020 - 6:06am
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - May 29, 2020 - 9:27pm
 
the Todd Rundgren topic - Steely_D - May 29, 2020 - 6:34pm
 
suggest "clasical music" - kcar - May 29, 2020 - 3:49pm
 
Covid-19 hits home at RP - fractalv - May 29, 2020 - 3:07pm
 
FLAC Streaming - TheKing2 - May 29, 2020 - 2:19pm
 
submissions - TheKing2 - May 29, 2020 - 2:18pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Lazy8 - May 29, 2020 - 2:06pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - buddy - May 29, 2020 - 12:48pm
 
Well, DUH!! - KarmaKarma - May 29, 2020 - 11:43am
 
Epic Facebook Statuses - Proclivities - May 29, 2020 - 11:42am
 
Free Books and Free Culture Online - R_P - May 29, 2020 - 11:34am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - May 29, 2020 - 10:15am
 
The RANT Forum - steeler - May 29, 2020 - 9:39am
 
The Buffoonery - oldviolin - May 29, 2020 - 9:28am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - May 29, 2020 - 9:20am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - islander - May 29, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - miamizsun - May 29, 2020 - 8:10am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - May 29, 2020 - 7:01am
 
Hong Kong - miamizsun - May 29, 2020 - 4:56am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - May 28, 2020 - 9:39pm
 
Movie Recommendation - Red_Dragon - May 28, 2020 - 3:56pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - May 28, 2020 - 3:26pm
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - May 28, 2020 - 2:13pm
 
Canada - R_P - May 28, 2020 - 12:52pm
 
Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - islander - May 28, 2020 - 11:29am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - May 28, 2020 - 5:21am
 
Favorite Books from Your Youth - kcar - May 27, 2020 - 9:20pm
 
Reinstock '05 Link Repository - AliGator - May 27, 2020 - 7:18pm
 
Those lovable acronym guys & gals - R_P - May 27, 2020 - 5:19pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - n4ku - May 27, 2020 - 4:14pm
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - May 27, 2020 - 3:02pm
 
Shuttle, ISS and other Real Space Ships - islander - May 27, 2020 - 2:22pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - R_P - May 27, 2020 - 1:40pm
 
Overheard - miamizsun - May 27, 2020 - 1:30pm
 
Republican Party - R_P - May 27, 2020 - 1:13pm
 
Economix - R_P - May 27, 2020 - 10:40am
 
Outstanding Covers - oldviolin - May 27, 2020 - 8:52am
 
Books - Proclivities - May 27, 2020 - 7:58am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 91, 92, 93 ... 100, 101, 102  Next
Post to this Topic
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:08pm

 Beaker wrote:

Ah lookit the irony here.  An American "netroots subvertising agency", creates a video on behalf of an American activist group, using video depicting the terrorist tactics of Greenpeace protests who staged a protest for the media here recently, using protesters/activists who where almost exclusively non-Canadians, and none of whom were Albertans.

And the video is posted to RP by a Canadian.

Wow.  Chutzpah or what?  So Welly, you're okay with foreigners deliberately attempting to influence our policies (and economy) here in Canuckistan, is that correct? 

Can I count on you to support the inverse?  How about we send a bunch of Canadians down to the US and attempt to interfere with their energy policies?  Maybe we can get that softwood lumber deal that affects your province finally fixed while we're at it.

I love lefty logic.  Any means to an end.  No matter how illogical, factually challenged or offensive.
 
{#Eek} OMFG.

I think my head just exploded from an ironic overload.

edit: I really want to say more, but I just don't know where to start....

Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 2:23pm


Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:33pm

 Zep wrote:

The Beeb has it too.

The differences appear to be whether to extend or abandon Kyoto; to what level of carbon cuts should developed countries commit; and a target date. Kyoto offers technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which is understandably why they want to continue it. The new text probably doesn't provide that; I can't tell just yet.

Edit - I'm not sure it really is a draft agreement; Yvo de Boer seems to be saying it was not, but that it was some sort of background sent out ahead of the meeting. Still, it doesn't look good if you're a delegate and on the second day, this thing appears.

 
Your correct, it isn't a Draft Agreement, just one of the many papers circulating & prepared before the Conference began by various diverse interest groups..  There are probably hundreds of different papers on all of the aspects of the problems & on the solutions.  None of them are the Offical UN or Copenhagen Summit papers.

Looks like the announcement by some Media of Disaray on the First Few Days is a way to try and invalidate the whole Conference Process.  Its the "No Hope, Nothing Here to See" scenerio that some groups are espousing.

I'd rather remember this quote by Al Gore

"The road to the signing of an agreement in Copenhagen will not be easy, but the world has traveled this path before. More than twenty years ago the US signed the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we banned most of the major pollutants that created the hole in the ozone over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support: President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.

We can do it again and solve the climate crisis, protecting our planet for future generations."


{#Daisy}



Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:15pm

 Beaker wrote:
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
 
The Beeb has it too.

The differences appear to be whether to extend or abandon Kyoto; to what level of carbon cuts should developed countries commit; and a target date. Kyoto offers technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which is understandably why they want to continue it. The new text probably doesn't provide that; I can't tell just yet.

Edit - I'm not sure it really is a draft agreement; Yvo de Boer seems to be saying it was not, but that it was some sort of background sent out ahead of the meeting. Still, it doesn't look good if you're a delegate and on the second day, this thing appears.


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:12pm

 edieraye wrote:


What?  You mean I'm not always perfectly clear and painstakingly precise? {#Lol} I do have a response but am going to blow you off (no dirty snickers from the peanut gallery) for a hot date.  Look for a response in a couple of hours.  Or if things go well, tomorrow morning! {#Wink}

  

I'll expect a full report on your, er, choices. {#Wink}   
Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:03pm

 edieraye wrote:
Painted_Turtle wrote:
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.

 
That would work quite well if every one on the planet shared the same sense of morality regarding what is the "right" thing to do as you do. 

Some times when one own' life is threatend by a problem, it serves as a greater motivator to make changes neccessary for survival, than having a fine tuned sense of morality.  But, you're correct that it would be great if everyone shared the view that being good stewards was the right thing to do.

I guess some groups, individuals, don't seem to mind "dirtying their own nest".  Clean or dirty is not a question or moral of right or wrong to them.  Nest destruction brings the issue more to the forfront

I find survival of humans and most of the animals & plants to be as good, or better, than using moral right as the reason for good environmental stewardship. (although that really would be wonderful if it was the basis).  Simply because the survival instinct is more immediate in getting a response (survival is the most basic human motivator) & if the science for the last 20 years is correct, we need a more immediate response.  Of course denial could be seen as one of the responses humans might have to a survival situation.  Fight, flight, freeze in place.


edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:57am

 steeler wrote:
I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. 
 

What?  You mean I'm not always perfectly clear and painstakingly precise? {#Lol} I do have a response but am going to blow you off (no dirty snickers from the peanut gallery) for a hot date.  Look for a response in a couple of hours.  Or if things go well, tomorrow morning! {#Wink}
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:32am

 edieraye wrote:

Oh see I hate living my life that way.  Of course, there are times I fall into that trap.  Reacting to whatever most urgently needs tending to.  But it isn't a good place to operate from.  I much prefer when I am making choices in my life.  I would argue that addressing the environment from the standpoint of best practices would garner more good will and better results than the band aid approach. My two cents.

 

I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. 

I do agree that issues should be framed as positively as possible.  

These are not issues of whether littering is wrong.  One of the issues being debated is whether human consumption (specifically, carbon emissions) are contributing significanlty to climate change.  So, I'm kind of at a loss as to how you would propose addressing that as simply a challenge to our stewardship of the earth.  To cut down on carbon emissions, for example, would entail more than just reinforcing to each individual that he or she must act in a way that better fosters a cleaner earth.    

As for life approaches: It is true that choosing to put out a particular fire first is not a pleasant choice, but it still is a choice. Could just let it burn and suffer the consequences — whatever they might be.  People do choose to do just that.  Is making the tougher, unpleasant choice a trap?  Sometimes, I do feel that way.  Other times, I see it as avoiding the trap.               


edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:23am

 steeler wrote:
Personally, I do think the degree of the "problem" matters in terms of the urgency in finding a solution. This is true in almost all aspects of our lives.  We priortize based upon which fire needs to be put out first. So, defining a problem also entails estimating the degree of the threat if the problem remains unresolved.    
 
Oh see I hate living my life that way.  Of course, there are times I fall into that trap.  Reacting to whatever most urgently needs tending to.  But it isn't a good place to operate from.  I much prefer when I am making choices in my life.  I would argue that addressing the environment from the standpoint of best practices would garner more good will and better results than the band aid approach. My two cents.
edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:18am

Painted_Turtle wrote:
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.
Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles eas
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am

 Beaker wrote:

It amuses me that I irritate you so — and you never fail to show it at every possible opportunity.


 

I'm the only one T.{#Good-vibes}
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am

 Coaxial wrote:


If it doesn't will you STFU?

 
Doubtful.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:08am

 Monkeysdad wrote:

That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.
 
A couple of points. Per capita efficiency of an airliner doesn't mean anything about it's overall impact. It's the full system we have created and it's impact on the environment that we need to look at.

Quasi-substantiated? Science is never absolute. If it is, it is not science. A significant majority of legitimate peer reviewed science (the method we use to give merit to such things) says we are having an impact. It will always be open to challenge, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate point that we should operate from. We elect leaders w/ less than a 1% majority, and we rally behind them as a country (or at least we agree not to riot over the inauguration). We should be able to rally around a 75%+ majority of scientific opinion.

Knee-jerk?  Nothing of this scale will ever be knee-jerk. It may be wrong, but it's hardly knee-jerk. That is just a label you are applying because you disagree with it.

Legacy. I have no children. But I do care what this place will look like in 100+ years. Even if the majority opinion is wrong on the cause, don't you think it's wise to address the problem? Or should we just wait and hope that some one will start to proclaim another ice age to worry about?  I'd be happy if we could just stop peeing upstream on the river.

Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles eas
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:08am

 Beaker wrote:
.
I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario.  Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
 

If it doesn't will you STFU?
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:07am

 Monkeysdad wrote:

That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.

 

cooling or warming regardless...they were saying back in '73 that the burning of fossil fuels was a bad idea for a clean/healthy planet. 

and re., " 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies" - that some great advancement.


samiyam

samiyam Avatar

Location: Moving North


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:07am

 Beaker wrote:
Here's a few thoughts I've had percolating for a while now. I'm putting it out here for your amusement and derision:
  • Global warming is a populist topic that politicians can attach to with little fear of criticism.  All populist topics go through a "fad" phase.  This topic just happens to have reached that phase.
  • Politicians hold most of the purse strings to funding and grants for research into global warming / climate change.  Somebody's got to be the scrivener.  If not them, then who?
  • Climate scientists recognize their field of expertise is a hot topic of much public interest.  Unless they're fools.
  • Scientists have long recognized the need to 'publish or perish'.  Sure... your point being?
  • Research in the field of climate change/global warming has attracted huge sums of money to the scientists and institutions conducting investigations into global warming / climate change. OK, yeah... here's an interesting point.
  • Scientists are people just like you and me.  They are subject to the same lures of corruption and profit motive.  I'm still dreaming about that condo on St. Lucia, yeah, so what?
  • The personal economic well-being of the global warming / climate change scientists is directly linked to their ability to bring in large amounts of funding to their institutions. Unfair, but true.
  • This is a scenario that is ripe for corruption and personal greed.  Let me teach you a new trade, son.
  • This scenario suggests some scientists may be inclined to skew their work to produce a product that will please their institutional and political masters, thus ensuring their ongoing job security and enhancing their personal influence.  Scientist are capable of cheating?  No!  Say It's Not So!

I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario.  Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
 
I predict that larger and larger storms will mess with your health and electrical connections.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:01am

 Beaker wrote:
Here's a few thoughts I've had percolating for a while now. I'm putting it out here for your amusement and derision:
  • Global warming is a populist topic that politicians can attach to with little fear of criticism.
  • Politicians hold most of the purse strings to funding and grants for research into global warming / climate change.
  • Climate scientists recognize their field of expertise is a hot topic of much public interest.
  • Scientists have long recognized the need to 'publish or perish'.
  • Research in the field of climate change/global warming has attracted huge sums of money to the scientists and institutions conducting investigations into global warming / climate change.
  • Scientists are people just like you and me.  They are subject to the same lures of corruption and profit motive.
  • The personal economic well-being of the global warming / climate change scientists is directly linked to their ability to bring in large amounts of funding to their institutions.
  • This is a scenario that is ripe for corruption and personal greed.
  • This scenario suggests some scientists may be inclined to skew their work to produce a product that will please their institutional and political masters, thus ensuring their ongoing job security and enhancing their personal influence.

I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario.  Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
 
Same as it ever was. Which tempts people to do silly things like whatever's most convenient (ignore all science, keep on keepin' on) and hope they're going to be okay. Or pray they're going to be okay.

MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:01am

 Monkeysdad wrote:

That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling"

 

Just picking up on this point when I was studying for my geography degree in the late 1980s there were papers out there that had identified the problem of sea level rise so there is at least twenty years provenance for development of the science.


Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:58am

 edieraye wrote:


Does it matter if there is a problem or not?  Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV.  God created the Earth.  He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it.  It is called stewardship.  You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:

We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter.  That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing.  We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not.  We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.

 
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

I agree that we need to become better stewards of our earth.  Polluting the oceans, rivers & land hasn't been working out very well for us or all of earth's animals.  Excellent point.

  I know that some Christians have been actively working on behalf of a more sustainable environment.  Its a wonderful example of diverse idealogical groups joining hands for the common good of all.




Monkeysdad

Monkeysdad Avatar

Location: Simi Valley, CA
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:56am

 steeler wrote:


I surely do not know.  

My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one.  There are those denying that there is a problem.  So, we are stuck on that.  Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?

That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem.  

Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms.  However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?  

What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?   

 

 
That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 91, 92, 93 ... 100, 101, 102  Next